Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

[Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 12:28:55PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:59:44AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> So I'm thinking we should have -maccumulate-outgoing-args always enabled
> > >> on x86_32 just like we already do on x86_64.
> > >
> > > Ugh. I realize we have workarounds for bugs, but I think
> > > -maccumulate-outgoing-args is nasty. It just generates worse code by
> > > avoiding the much nicer push/pop sequences, afaik.
> 
> Yes, maybe the pushes/pops around a function call are a little easier to
> read than movs.
> 
> But the -maccumulate-outgoing-args realignment prologue is a *lot* worse
> for readability, IMO.

Er, the *NON* -maccumulate-outgoing-args realignment prologue.

> Also, the gcc documentation says -maccumulate-outgoing-args is
> "generally beneficial for performance and size."
> 
> Not to mention the fact that -maccumulate-outgoing-args seems to already
> be enabled in most cases anyway.  Having it uniformly enabled everywhere
> makes it less confusing overall when the rare divergences are
> encountered.  From looking at some of the changes related to
> ADD_ACCUMULATE_OUTGOING_ARGS in arch/x86/Makefile_32.cpu, I can tell
> that several others before me have stumbled into this prologue issue.
> 
> > > On x86-64 it's not such a big deal, because we pass the first six
> > > arguments in registers anyway, so the arguments on the stack is a
> > > fairly unusual special case.
> > >
> > > But on x86-32, we only have three argument registers, so this
> > > braindamage is potentially worse.
> > >
> > > I guess we already do this in most situations due to the gcc bugs, but
> > > I do think it's sad that we would do it for our _own_ bugs too.
> > >
> > 
> > Is it our bug or a gcc bug?  I would have thought
> > -fno-omit-frame-pointer meant that the call-frame-to-return-address
> > offset should be constant and -fomit-frame-pointer meant "do
> > whatever".
> 
> I don't think it's a gcc bug because it doesn't seem to violate frame
> pointer conventions:
> 
>     pushl -0x4(%edi)	# copy return address
>     push %ebp
> 
> The frame pointer and return address are still stored adjacently.  And
> it normally allows unwinds to work fine.
> 
> The problem is the kernel unwinder's assumption that the last frame
> pointer is at a certain address.  That assumption breaks with the DRAP
> prologue.
> 
> > Also, maybe I'm missing something, but does gcc's code even allow the
> > function to return sensibly?  It could do it by a nasty calculation
> > involving backing out the old esp from edi, but that seems quite
> > overcomplicated.
> 
> That's what it does:
> 
>     lea -0x8(%edi),%esp
>     pop %edi
>     ret
> 
> -- 
> Josh

-- 
Josh